What does explain it? Culture, specifically parents’ expectations, which is why I thought this was interesting. Often in informal discussions people assume that the culture must affect the child’s expectations directly, and so there’s a type of argument that points to a child’s preference for princess costumes or trucks, notes that the child is too young (and too well-parented) to know that those toys are gendered, and concludes therefore that preferences for princess costumes or trucks must be hardwired somehow. What is often overlooked is that while the young child may be sheltered from the media, her parents aren’t, and neither are her parents’ friends. If Suzy develops an interest in cars and princesses and her parents’ friends respond by teasing her parents by wondering where Suzy got this strange interest in cars, it reinforces the message to her parents that loving princesses is normal for a girl, and loving cars is not. Thus, “Suzy loved princesses and cars as a little girl” becomes “Suzy loved princesses like all little girls do, but she also liked cars.” Not a huge problem for cars and princesses, of course, but risky if the proposition is “Suzy is struggling with math” or “Joey seems to be lagging behind verbally.”

3. Did anyone else watch Zombieland and think that the lead role had been written for Michael Cera, and then went to someone else?

This is officially an award-winning blog

HNN, Best group blog: "Witty and insightful, the Edge of the American West puts the group in group blog, with frequent contributions from an irreverent band.... Always entertaining, often enlightening, the blog features snazzy visuals—graphs, photos, videos—and zippy writing...."

133 comments

3: I thought precisely that – that Michael Cera’s asking price had suddenly jumped beyond their budget, or he got a better offer for another movie, or something. The Cera-substitute they got in did a good job, though.

As for Zombieland, a certain thing about it (which I don’t want to spoil for future viewers) was so amazing that I forgot entirely about any casting questions from that point on. However, my husband and I typically refer to Jesse Eisenberg as the poor man’s Michael Cera. I googled that phrase before posting this and found that we are not the only ones.

While my deep appreciation for Michael Cera’s talent (especially in Arrested Development) is unlikely to fade, he has chose a couple of bad movies, so the verdict on which actor will come out on top in this battle hasn’t come back yet.

That article on sex difference or the lack thereof with gender had one thing that really annoyed me. At its core, it was some pre-publication publicity for “Delusions of Gender,” by Cordelia Fine. It mentions some of the other books on the time and then quotes Lise Eliot extensively without quoting Fine.

This might be ok, but perhaps the reason they decided to quote Dr. Eliot is because she wrote one of the most detailed and in-depth books on the topic for a lay readership, “Pink Brain, Blue Brain.” It would be nice if they gave her some publicity too. By the way, if you are interested in this topic read Eliot’s book. You won’t regret it.

Believe me, my daughter’s parents wanted no part of princesses or pink or pretty. I blame daycare, where she was surrounded by traditionally-gendered culture from 3 months of age. We spent our time with her pointing out construction vehicles and listening to baseball on the radio (OK, technically I was listening and my wife was being annoyed, but I was telling stories of the tomboys in my daughter’s lineage). All for naught.

Meanwhile, my 2-y.o. boy, who has never spent time with a boy within 2 years of his own age, has learned to make fart and poop jokes. I solemnly assure you that we neither encourage nor condone this behavior.

I’ve never been a believer in nature over nurture, but by God, do my children test my beliefs. My actual theory – and this is more or less what dana says – is that it’s a lot of confirmation bias and feedback loops. The boy is quite careful and even delicate in his block-stacking, but that gets read as “he’s a little builder,” not “look at how delicately he plays.”

As for gender imprinting in preschool, I’ll pass along (and slightly mangle) one of my favorite anecdotes from “Pink Brain, Blue Brain.” (retold in that book from somewhere else) A professor who was well versed in all the gender research had a young son. One day the son decided he wanted to wear barrettes to school. The mother knew he’d get teased, but figured she’d let him learn through experience.

He came home and said the day was fine. Figuring something happened, she asked the teacher. The teacher said one of the boys was taunting him saying “only girls wear barrettes.” Being the wise son of his professor-mother, he said he’s a boy because he has a penis and promptly dropped his pants to show. The other boy replied, “Everyone had a penis, but only girls wear barrettes.”

Interesting how Cordelia Fine claims “there are no major neurological differences between the sexes,” when basic neuronal functions are not understood.

I don’t know what it said in Fine’s book, but your quote is from the reporter, not Fine. Also, it would be more accurate to say that “basic neuronal function is not completely understood.” It’s hardly a black-hole of the sciences. That said, there’s no indication that I’m aware of that anyone has linked particular signaling pathways to intellect, let alone that there are differences between the sexes in those hypothetical pathways. Given the actual evidence that is available to her, instead of the fantasy evidence that is not, I would say no, it’s not very interesting that she would say it at all.

@Ed, We know there are no MAJOR neurological differences between the sexes because differences are defined by a measurable endpoint. If there was a sex difference on dopamine receptors it wouldn’t you expect a large measurable effect?

Whenever you hear about the various cognitive tests that show sex differences, the difference might be significant, but the overlap is large (i.e. not a major difference). The only known major difference is what sex people prefer for mates (i.e. most people prefer the opposite sex)

Since I’m already sounding like a book advertisement, I’ll add that another cool thing about Lise Eliot’s book is that she actually talks about many of the sex difference studies from the eyes of a scientist. For example you sometimes hear that girls have more connections within the brain. This was based on a single, small population study of Corpus Callosum size in the early 1980’s. Even as imaging technology got better, that study couldn’t be reliably replicated, but you still hear this claim.

For the skeptics here, she also writes clearly about the real (but small) differences that have been observed and validated and which ones can be attributed to hormonal differences vs nurture.

I saw Lise Eliot give a talk; she’s very clearly frustrated with “The Female Brain” and other ontheveldt-ish just so stories, and her frustration is split between crap science and crap science journalism.

I don’t know if my response was edited out or not, but to say that what is known about the brain is sufficient to say there are no gender differences is rather ridiculous, in my mind.

As an example, I happen to know a researcher who did some work on a synthetic heroin that was causing Parkinson’s disease. It turns out the synthetic heroin had a byproduct, MPTP, which in and of itself is a normal happy non-toxic molecule. Near the nigralstriatial cells there happens to be a single enzyme of millions that MPTP fit into. It lifts an electron up, and breaks MPTP into two compounds, one which is MPP+ and happens to be deadly to cells. This particular enzyme happens to be near the nigralstriatial cells and MPP+ is a deadly toxin. The nigralstriatial cells are important because they control muscle movement: except the eyes. Loose too many of them, and you can no longer move. Is that enzyme of millions important to something, or fundamental to some neuronal process? Who is to say.

Another simple example is the divergence of sexes in other species. This one is my favorite: bird of paradise

Its obvious there is physical divergence. Of course, I also detect some behavioral differences there too, between the sexes. And why shouldn’t there be? The two sexes have a mechanism to diverge to suit different purposes.

And finally, for those who think brains are just a mass of neurons, consider this study of deeply embedded genetic code in our brains. It turns out that snakes and spiders are hard wired in ape brains. A study was run in which a female ape was conditioned to fear spiders. The female would become hysterical in their presence. This hysteria imprinted on the young apes, and they immediately became fearful of apes. But interestingly, they needed to be exposed to the hysteria to obtain the fear.

Another female ape was conditioned to fear flowers. In this case, there was no coupling to the young apes. They did not become fearful of flowers.

And if that isn’t enough, I would point out that some drugs cause very different behavior in different people. Some people are fine on SSRIs. Others it causes suicidal behavior in.

And finally, there is this consciousness thing. The most plausible explanation I’ve heard so far is that it doesn’t exist! But it sure seems like it does. It is mind boggling to me to think that a bunch of matter and simple processes can lead to consciousness, yet that seems to be a byproduct of some function of the brain.

Ed, I don’t think anyone is claiming there are no differences in neurological development (there are, the article mentions at least one), or that the human mind/brain is completely understood, let alone that all brains are the same. What is being claimed is that in terms of outcomes that we can measure, (intellectual ability) there are no differences that are important between genders and the differences in behavior that are perceived are explainable by social conditioning. Maybe there are some signaling pathways that are different, but whatever hypothetical differences there are on a molecular level don’t appear to affect anyone’s ability to score a 390 in math on their SATs. Your examples don’t really address the question.

I can’t let this slip by:
@ bsci Ed, We know there are no MAJOR neurological differences between the sexes because differences are defined by a measurable endpoint.

I think fundamentalists use this same argument to refute evolution. And certainly, there was a time when the concept had never come up, so there was no way to “measure it.” This, among many other examples, shows that there is no meaning to “We can’t measure it.” Yet, there are differences in aptitude, which are measured, but these are disregarded as environmental.

@mark This was regarding boys and girls, not men and women. Who knows what the hormones do. While there are differences in hormones at a young age, they really kick in later. And brain development continues long after originally thought: well into the twenties.

The idea that because boys and girls show small differences means the brains of men and women are the same seems wrong to me.

In fact, that small hormonal differences yield small differentiation seems to support the idea there are differences. As the hormones become more pronounced, so do the differences.

While I’m recommending books, for anyone else interested in the MPTP and Parkinson’s story, the book to read is “The Case of the Frozen Addicts” by J William Langston and Jon Palfreman. It’s a good first person historical perspective that gets into a lot of the science and policy issues regarding this case.

@Ed, you also don’t get what is meant by major differences and you have the evolution comparison backwards. Like in neuroscience, the theory of evolution was built off of present day (or Darwinian day) observations of life. There is huge observed variations across species and people wanted to know why.
The theory of evolution is testable hypotheses to explain the observed differences. No observed differences would mean need for such a theory.

In neuroscience there IS huge differentiation among individuals and there is a lot of work to be done understanding the causes of those differences. It just so happens that sex explains only a small fraction of those differences.

@Ed
In response to your hormone comment to Mark, we actually have quite a decent knowledge of what hormones do. In humans, the biggest dose of sex-specific hormones is pre-natal, not the teenage years. There’s another spike around age 3. Scientists have looked for sex differences around both these time periods in both humans and other animals and have a decent picture of what hormones do and do not do in the early stages. The teenage years are harder to study because nuture also plays a role.

I’ll also note we know a lot about what hormones do by studying people with conditions like Congenital adrenal hyperplasia which change hormone uptake. There are also studies of M/F, M/M, and F/F twins who have different levels of pre-natal hormones depending on the pairing. There are sex differences in all these cases, but they are fairly small. I could keep writing about this topic, but Lise Eliot covers sex hormones in a lot more detail and with better prose than me. If you’re interested in this topic, why don’t you actually read about it from a neuroscientist?

@bsci
On the one hand you admit not much is known. On the other hand you say of what we can measure, only a small part of that is due to sex. If you look at aptitude scores of men and women, there is a marked and HUGE difference between various aptitudes. Whether these are due to brain structure or not is open to debate, though I pointed out many logical reasons why differences would arise.

Spatial relations is interesting. Women are petite in the upper body. The latest fad of action movies showing women overcoming very powerful men is the same kind of reasoning I see here. Why is there a difference in upper body strength? I put it to you a simple explanation is that men hunt. Men engage in fighting. Would it not be advantageous for men to have a better sense of where things are in order to better able throw the punch, avoid the kick, etc.?

Glad you read Langston’s book. He is an MD (body ENGINEER, not scientist) who thought adding small cells into the substantia nigra would cure Parkinsons. What was found is that stirring up the cell with or without small cells gives a temporary reprieve from parkinsons.

Finally, you miss my point. In the 1500s there was no way to measure “evolution.” Does that mean it did not exist? Obviously not, since we think evolution has been occurring for billions of years. There was nothing to measure back then.

In the late 1800s physicists thought there was nothing more to learn about physics. However, some observable events changed that, and a new era of physics was created.

What bothers me about the “no differences” crowd is it seems so obvious there ARE differences. So long as the underlying mechanisms aren’t understood, and they aren’t, one can say “Oh, it’s environment that makes the large observed differences.” One can say that, but I say take a look at the bird of paradise and tell me the sexes aren’t on two different paths of evolution.

I am interested, but not with someone with an agenda. The fact that there is so little known about the brain means this is positing at best and positioning most likely.

Meanwhile, I’m in my 3rd(!) attempt at completing Barzun’s “From Dawn to Decadence.” Once I finish that I want to read more about genes, and more about consciousness.

I’m still looking for the guy who wants to have a baby growing inside him. Many women seem to like that idea, but somehow it is horrifying to me (think Alien the movie), as it is to many men I’ve asked. Hardly scientific, but ugh! =)

@Ed If you look at aptitude scores of men and women, there is a marked and HUGE difference between various aptitudes.

Do you mind pointing me to a single aptitude score that has shown a HUGE sex difference in repeated high quality studies? The SAT and other classic exam differences are significant, but the overlap across sexes is quite large and the difference varies by culture and over time (i.e. you don’t expected gaps to decrease with more women getting educated if it’s sex-linked). Not a single person on the list here said there were no differences, just no huge/major differences.

For what it’s worth, Langston was the clinician who made the initial observation and worked with a team of scientists to make several key discoveries. Criticizing someone for being just an MD in modern science doesn’t understand how researchers work in teams.

Regarding evolution, the differences across species were clear to everyone for millenia. The measurements existed, but the theory didn’t come together until Wallace & Darwin.

@bsci I’m quite intimate with the story, as I now the organic chemist who did the decoding the chemical pathways very well. What I’m suggesting is that there is a difference between science and body experimentation. The Kudos goes to Langston for detecting the link that certain drug users were getting parkinsons. No offense to the man meant. Incidentally, the person making the synthetic heroin defended himself by saying he was “Experimenting with snow cone flavors.” Now that person is deserving of scorn.

My only point is that one thing is science, the other is engineering. I’ll stick with the scientists =)

For example you sometimes hear that girls have more connections within the brain. This was based on a single, small population study of Corpus Callosum size in the early 1980′s. Even as imaging technology got better, that study couldn’t be reliably replicated, but you still hear this claim

I remember hearing an author interview a few years ago, Michael Gurian, about the difference that the corpus callosum made in the male & female abilities to process interhemispherically. He posited that women had the equivalent of an 8-lane highway between hemispheres, which gave them an ability to absorb & analyze larger quantities of disparate information much more readily… and that males had more of a 2-lane arterial (over which the info sped at great speed, to be sure…). There was some talk about modern imaging techniques & analysis of those results as well… pretty interesting, but maybe not real “scientific”? ^..^

@bsci: J. Philippe Rushton has done a lot of work in this area, including recently published papers. However, these are probably under a lot of attack. He finds 5 points of IQ at the mean, but the more important thing is at the edges of the curve. So when you find a six sigma woman, hang on to her =)

Ed, there’s something that’s been bugging me that maybe you can help me with. Guys like Rushton always object when they’re called “racists,” but what is the preferred term? Does “racialist” work, or is there some other word or description?

Interesting that you reject Eliot’s work because she has “an agenda” but will happily cite an active “scientific” racist like Rushton. It would almost make one think that perhaps you’ve already come to your conclusions, and are merely looking to confirm them.

@politicalfootball: I think it’s observation. I don’t think it is “racist” to report observations about groups. In fact, I think it is proper, especially since many government programs operate by identifying groups of one kind or another.

Is it racist to say Irish Americans are the most successful group in America? Is it racist to say Jews are the second most successful group in America? I think not.

Remember those sesame street commercials in with the jingle “One of these things is not like the other?” It’s a natural human characteristic (and I assume natural to many animals as well) to group things together and find similarities. That some don’t fit the “stereotype” and that people incorrectly draw conclusions is, in my view, an unfortunate part of the human condition. People don’t have enough time, insight, or knowledge to identify when this is mistaken. Or maybe people are lazy.

I think this human quality we all as individuals have to create observations of people must constantly be tempered. But I also think it is in the Neural net parts of the brain, and so I don’t think people can control very well. One has to build layers on top to filter what the net is urging us to think.

Koffler’s point is important, by the way: Rushton isn’t marginal. Even the supposedly respectable race-and-IQ hucksters like Jensen collaborate with him. I think that’s a pretty good reason to doubt the whole field.

I think it’s observation. I don’t think it is “racist” to report observations about groups.

Well, as you note, it depends on what the observations are. Rushton regards black people as less intelligent than whites. That makes him a racist according to people who use the dictionary to determine what words mean. But in my experience, folks like Rushton always view the term “racist” as a slur.

So the question is, what’s the politically correct designation for folks whose beliefs fit the dictionary definition of racism, but who object to being called racists?

@mark: you asked for a reference. I don’t see where I say I agree with it. I still think this topic requires a lot more investigation and study. Whether he is right or not: who is to say? I think it is a complex subject. Until the underlying mechanisms are understood (much) better in 100 years or so, it will continue to be open to debate.

Let’s not buy into the frame. Neutral observations about SAT scores or academic achievement or socioeconomic status aren’t racist, but the people who really want to assert that X is an inborn trait on little to no evidence, or generalize based on little data may well be.

So the question is, what’s the politically correct designation for folks whose beliefs fit the dictionary definition of racism, but who object to being called racists?

Ed has stated that using generalizations about groups is a “basic tool of the mind” important to dealing with a complex world (See the Iftar discussion.) Dealing in generalities when working in a complex situation does create many of the aspects of racism, but doesn’t necessarily include the hostility often associated with racism. Of course being hostile to a group of people isn’t required for an attitude to be racist–but perhaps the implication of hostility is what is objectionable. (The racist argues that he isn’t opposed to a group–many of his friends are in that group. But, they should stay in their place because it is better for them.)

Speaking in generalities about a complex situation also includes the sophomoric and/or lazy argument. Without the signature of overt animus, it is hard to tell the difference between these two and racism, since a lazy generality (for example) about a racial group is usually racist, but could indicate only laziness or a newly awakened but insufficient understanding (sophomoric understanding).

A third possibility, is that the speaker isn’t competent to judge his performance and knows that “racist” is a bad thing, but doesn’t know what it is or what it means. This can arise from ignorance, stupidity, mental deficiency or other unfortunate conditions.

Another consideration is that the speaker isn’t a racist because he is acting as an agent rather than as an individual. The speaker may not be a racist if he is speaking the words of a racist out of admiration for his leader rather than from personal conviction. I’ve heard this condition called being a “LimBot” when applied to rightwing-nuts and and “fellow traveler” when applied to leftwing-nuts.

A final consideration is that the person speaking is simply not an honest arguer. Rather than seeking resolution or understanding, the goal is to gain amusement by trolling dishonest bait across the discussion to make people angry and waste their time. This then, is the “dishonest” category which includes the “bullshitter” as described so well by Frankfurt in his nice little monograph “On Bullshit” from Princeton University Press.

@Mark
My position is no one knows. I suspect and gave evidence there are forces likely to create differences, but I don’t know if these forces have caused differences or not. I strongly suspect it, and the difference in male and female behavior as controlled by the brain is a smoking gun to me, but to “know” it requires far more understanding of the brain than is currently available, in my estimation.

Meanwhile, I will have to retract my statement, from there “are” to “some state” there are marked and huge differences, with whatever evidence they have. In my personal experience, I see marked and large differences. In science, there are marked and large differences in significant discoveries historically. That’s all evidence there are differences. Whether these are on account of environment, hormones, genetics, who is to say. Not enough information to “know” it.

So I think most of the arguments are of a political nature, not of a scientific one. But we’ve seen a lot of that lately. You can believe whatever you want, but in my opinion you do not know, and I only suspect.

I do still very much believe that “racism” is a part of human nature, and it is beyond anyone’s capability to completely +dispense of it. As someone once said, some old women are able to tell it’s going to rain with high predictability. Ask them why they know this, and they can’t answer. That’s because the neural net gets trained but it is exceedingly difficult to understand what it’s operating on. I think this same principle applies to identifiable groups of people, whether it is the way their face looks, their behavior, and sometimes to big things like their religion.

I think we need to be ever vigilant to try to be as fair as we can. I suspect the American people have this as an intrinsic part of their character due to the origins of the country as people escaping from tyranny.

I also think it is a tremendous slap in the face to think of “most” Americans as intolerant bigots merely because their own “neural nets” regarding a Muslims have been washed with images of stonings, twin towers, Burkhas, aspects of Sharia law, Muslims killing people in Fort Hood, Terrorist attacks in Spain and other places around the world, and some of the more nasty stuff in the Q’uran. There needs to be a counter to that, a face put on the people. I don’t know whose responsibility this is, but I think the reaction is exactly what one would expect. We were invaded, people were killed, and people’s brains are being washed with the relationship between Islam and the actions. It’s natural.

My understanding is that when any respectable scientist uses the phrase “we know X” to be true they mean “according to the best interpretations of the best data we have, we can reliably conclude X to be true, and proceed from there unless better data indicates otherwise.” That is a reasonable, intellectually honest approach. Arguments that amount to “maybe there are unicorns on planets we haven’t discovered yet,” citations from the Journal of Anecdotal Evidence, and cynical references to racist pseudo science in which you apparently don’t even believe do not rise to the same level.

@Ed
I have no clue what your argument is anymore. When I suggested you give an example of a huge difference you cites the males are more often at the tail ends of the curve hypothesis. Even if that argument is completely true something that effects the tails of a curve is, by definition a minor effect. (Assuming a parameter has a normal distribution, 3X the standard deviation at both tails accounts for less than 3% of the population.) Whether or not the person you’re citing is a racist is irrelevant to the point.

In your last comment you seem to admit that modern scientific evidence hasn’t been able to find large differences, but you say “In my personal experience, I see marked and large differences.” Personal observations is not science. In fact, the most exciting science is discovering things that violate our gut observations. In my comments above, I’ve cited many examples of assumed sex differences that fell flat after quality scientific study. Do you have anything besides trying to say neuroscience is hard and your own personal observations?

I have to admit, I’m a bit amused that you’re accusing others of non-scientific arguments.

@Mark, OK. Like I said, from my limited understanding of the forefront of neuroscience no one can speak authoritatively on male/female brain differences (except homosexuals who like to say their brain structure is different therefore there is a genetic component to homosexuality). I think it would be more reasonable to say the evidence is there are differences between men and women’s intellectual capability/achievements. No one knows why.

@bsci: OK, one more time. NO ONE KNOWS. Knowing requires understanding the mechanisms. Some people like to say it is differences and how we are raised (environmental). Others think there are differences in brain function. However, there is no doubt that the overwhelming recorded great achievements have been from men.

I suspect it is because men and women have been evolving for millions of years to suit different purposes. But who knows what the truth is? That’s been my position since the beginning.

What I am saying is that the brain is not understood well enough to begin to have even an INKLING of what it actually does. When someone comes back and tells me “This is why Einstein had such a great mind,” I’ll probably have a better idea. Of course, I’ll be dead by then, so it won’t matter.

Meanwhile, this whole discussion doesn’t matter. It’s simply using pseudo science to push a political agenda. And it pushes an agenda that’s hard, at least for me, to accept as likely.

Look at the differences in the behavior of the male and female bird of paradise, and tell me something in their brain hasn’t changed to suit their different roles.

from my limited understanding of the forefront of neuroscience no one can speak authoritatively on male/female brain differences

Except that in the article we’re talking about, there is at least one scientist doing exactly that, and two others buttressing her claims. It’s not a great article on which to base a discussion of science in that it doesn’t describe what studies she’s used, but that only makes your insistence on rejecting her work all the more perverse: you don’t know what basis she’s making her claims, or how she’s controlled for any of the confounds you’ve identified, but you appear to be fairly confident in your dismissal of her conclusions. That seems political.

I think we need to be ever vigilant to try to be as fair as we can. I suspect the American people have this as an intrinsic part of their character due to the origins of the country as people escaping from tyranny.

I wasn’t completely sure, but Ed really is falling back on the “great men of history” evidence of biological sex differences. Since proportionally more women are now making great achievements and becoming world leaders does that mean women are now evolving faster than men? The historians here can probably laugh at this more than a lowly neuroscientist like myself. Is that really the only “evidence” you can think of to support clear sex-based mental differences?

And as I’ve said before, we actually do know quite about about the brain and sex differences. It just so happens that every time I or someone else mentions some of these studies you tune it out and say you have a friend who is a chemist who told you everything is complex. If you want to understand the science rather than babbling, how about reading about it?

I think it would be more reasonable to say the evidence is there are differences between men and women’s intellectual capability/achievements. No one knows why.

You don’t need to assume differences in capabilities to produce the observed differences in achievements because there are other obstacles in the way of achievements by women that have nothing to do with capabilities.

More to the point, capability as it is ordinarily measured to some extent *is* an achievement. Your capability to read and write English, for example, is dependent on, among other factors, how much time you have spent (from your childhood up till yesterday) reading and writing English; surely you wouldn’t suggest that Chinese people are *genetically* unable to read and write English merely because they learned Chinese instead?

But if you substitute “domestic skills and habits of subservience” and “academic, athletic, outdoor, and martial skills and habits of assertiveness and competitiveness” for “Chinese” and “English” respectively, you have the historical situation of women and men in many cultures of historical importance. People trained in one way have different capabilities than people trained in another way. That’s what training is all about.

Women didn’t know what they weren’t taught and had no opportunity to practice. If you see that and reach for the genetic explanation first, it’s because that’s what you wanted to find.

P.S. I’m not personally committed to absolutely zero group differences, but all sound evidence points to the effect size being small enough relative to overall variation that treating individuals based on their individual characteristics and not their group memberships is a practical, as well as moral, imperative.

@mark The scientists are claiming they understand such a standard component of the brain as consciousness? Come on. without that, how can one claim “we know enough to know there are no differences.”

@bsciI wasn’t completely sure, but Ed really is falling back on the “great men of history” evidence of biological sex differences.

Actually, I’m not. I’m saying quite clearly there are differences. If I had to place a bet, I would put it on biological differences, probably tied to brain function. But if you read this clearly:

I suspect it is because men and women have been evolving for millions of years to suit different purposes. But who knows what the truth is? That’s been my position since the beginning.

I’m actually saying no one knows. That shouldn’t be hard for a neuroscientist to understand.

But aren’t you the same person that said because we can’t measure differences (today) no differences exist? That’s such a silly position to have. Especially since the outer edges of the bell curve (according to some studies) do show differences. And there are a lot of theories that I find to be credible that posit differences.

In my view, women are the choosers. They have much more influence on men than men do on women biology. So long as we can get rid of the pill and AFDC, we eggheads will continue to reproduce. (Humor, not to be taken seriously for actual debating purposes).

@politicalfootball:So all humans are racists, but “most” Americans are correctly insulted by being regarded as such. Is this because Americans are Übermensch?
You got me. What I’m trying to say is that it is in the American Culture part of it to not be as susceptible to racism as most other cultures are. In fact, given the blood spilled by many Americans to right injustices, I would say they are willing to go pretty far.

Even if there are differences at the outer edges of the bell curves, these difference are minor (by definition of being at the outer edges of the bell curve). There are many observed small differences, but you still haven’t mentioned a single large difference except an embarrassing appeal the sex of history’s great leaders.

To rephrase my comments on observed differences, you cannot posit theories regarding why a difference exists if that difference does not exist. Show me a major cognitive sex difference and we can start talking theory.

@chrisYou don’t need to assume differences in capabilities to produce the observed differences in achievements because there are other obstacles in the way of achievements by women that have nothing to do with capabilities.
I think you are confusing what an ideal world would be like compared to the real world. Just because there are other explanations doesn’t make them correct. And I for one think it would be almost impossible for men and women to be identical in these areas, simply because there is a way to evolve separately.

Meanwhile, I did think of an interesting experiment. Take some animal with a complex mating habit, grow a female to adulthood, remove its hormone producing glands, and inject it with male hormone. If it starts to court females with the proper ritual, I’ll have to reconsider my position.

“evidence” like you don’t want a baby isn’t really germane. You too have been socialized.

She might be wrong in her claims, but so far you’ve put forward no legitimate basis to dispute them, because you have no idea why she’s saying it in the first place. Intellectual nihilism like “no one really knows anything” isn’t an argument that really leads anywhere.

Your hypothetical differences do not matter either: if we already know that women can be just as good at math if we control for social factors, and that their neurons fire the same way under an fMRI, then it doesn’t particularly matter is their dopamenergic receptors are slightly more or less active for us to be able to answer the question at hand. They are not “major” differences, because they do not affect the outcomes about which we are concerned. How do we know? Because we can measure the outcomes, and control for as many different factors as we can.

Put another way, if I want to know if both a Toyota Camry and a Volkswagen Jetta can go 60 mph, it isn’t necessarily a flaw in my science if I don’t know if one is on Firestones and the other on Michelins. It is if one if I measure one climbing the Rockies and the other on the Indianapolis Speedway.

@Ed,
There are actually quite a few experiments like the one you mentioned. Let’s take a complex animal like humans and look at disorders that alter hormones like CAH, such as the first study that pops up on a google scholar search of CAH and sexual orientation.
Hines et al “The Journal of sexual research” 2004. Finally, among women with CAH, we found that recalled male-typical play in childhood correlated with reduced satisfaction with the female gender and reduced heterosexual interest in adulthood. Although prospective studies are needed, these results suggest that those girls with CAH who show the greatest alterations in childhood play behavior may be the most likely to develop a bisexual or homosexual orientation as adults and to be dissatisfied with the female sex of assignment.

Like mentioned much earlier, sexual preference is the only major observed sex difference in humans. How does this prove your point?

THe first bit, roughly, was “No one is claiming there are no differences, only that those differences that exist do not account for the intellectual differences we perceive. Those differences can be accounted for by socialization, according to the author. THerefore, “evidence” like you don’t want a baby isn’t really germane. You too have been socialized.

What I’m trying to say is that it is in the American Culture part of it to not be as susceptible to racism as most other cultures are. In fact, given the blood spilled by many Americans to right injustices, I would say they are willing to go pretty far.

Racism is pretty deeply rooted in U.S. culture. Slavery here, for instance, lasted a lot longer than it did elsewhere in the West; de jure apartheid lasted waaaay longer. The genocide of Native Americans still had quite a distance to go when the USA became a country, and the people who came here “escaping from tyranny” – your phrase – were, in fact, more than happy to impose tyranny on the natives.

It’s true that there are a substantial number of black people in America, and black people don’t hate black people or, as a rule, find them intrinsically inferior to whites. But for the purposes of your argument, I don’t think that counts as American tolerance for black people.

@bsci
A 2005 study by Ian Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der, and Timothy Bates,[21] focusing on the ASVAB scores of 1,292 pairs of opposite sex siblings, showed twice as many males as females in the top and bottom 2% of scores, demonstrating a significantly higher variance in male scores.

So the question is, what’s the politically correct designation for folks whose beliefs fit the dictionary definition of racism, but who object to being called racists?

Perhaps one could also use “Anosognosic” or “Anosodysphoric” as a descriptive word. The Dunning–Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) still doesn’t have good, short pungent descriptive associated with it. These long words can keep a discussion apparently polite and create a pause for breath in the conversation while the target looks them up and reads reference (2).

@bsciWhen you are looking for differences in the top and bottom 2% of scores you are looking at a minor difference. If it affects a fraction of 4% of the population it is minor.

These are the people that move humanity forwards (actually, even more to the right of the curve than that). I wonder what happens at the 99.999% interval. That’s only 1/100000, you know. If the results are that 10 times of men as women, it starts to explain the history, does it not?

And there was an equal amount of male ‘dominance’ holding humanity backwards at the other end of the curve… no? Or the Teamwork quotient? Was THAT in there, too?

Deductive science & competitive activities are a lot alike, aren’t they? I mean, where’s the means to test for an “IQ” of cooperative qualities? And yet, as a social animal, it’s that very quality by which we survive & prosper. Maybe it’s so intrinsic now that it’s a “given”… but it seems like there’d be degrees to it… and then there’s the “measuring” thing, again!

@Ed, CA, I’d really like you to expand upon the “bird of paradise” thing that you’ve referenced a half a dozen times, now… not just because I am too lazy/inept to seek the info myself, but because I also like a good yarn/ “gee-whiz” moment– like reading about the male fish with its mouthful of fertilized eggs waiting to have babies swimming out of his pie hole, some day (& totally TRUSTING the female to provide him with only HIS potential progeny, to accommodate his selfish genes & all).

I’m still waiting for even scant evidence that the people in the upper tail have an inordinate influence on the process of humanity. I’ve met enough Nobel prize winners who aren’t in the tip of the tail and enough pizza spinners who are.

Even taking this claim at face value, it can’t a sex difference can’t be explained in terms of evolution. A sex-selective difference that effects a constant fraction of the population isn’t going to increase propagation of those traits. If, instead, you’re arguing that having these people in the population pushes the whole species forward, there is no evolutionary reason for it to be only men.

That’s a bit difficult, isn’t it. IQ is a modern measure, and apparently the measuring stick is changing. Wait! That contradicts the idea that we know what all to measure.

I don’t know the IQ of all the men who discovered the theories of quantum mechanics used in our high tech industry today, nor the IQ of the men that theorized and controlled atom splitting, yielding great non C02 producing energy from nuclear reactors, but I would guess it was rather high. If you don’t think those discoveries changed humanity, well, what can I say. I think the French are rather happy with their breeder reactors, for instance. But they didn’t have Jane Fonda and Hollywood.

Meanwhile, my most favorite smart person is a woman. I also think women make men what they are. Women are more valuable than men. They choose, and they raise us. But that thinking doesn’t align with modern day liberal thinking, which evidently trends towards a diminishing “race.”

My view is the big stick of “worth” in modern day society is screwed up. But I’m definitely a strange person. An Atheist Conservative. Now THAT’s out there! =)

@markf there are unicorns on other planets, it will completely upend the existing scientific consensus on unicorns.

That’s silly. As the bell curve moves to the right (or the left), the divergence grows. That’s evidence, not unicorns. The sample size is too small to know, naturally, but for someone who is so willing to accept a theory that aligns with what you would like it to be and reject the evidence to the contrary, I would say you need to stop counting your unicorns.

@Ed, CA are BLAMING the “superior” women for… for allowing the “negative” cream of the crop to persist… and therefore hold “Humanity” back? It’s compassion that’s to blame for our regressions & bassackwardness, then? Do you suppose it’s that same compassion that provides the basis for our “morality”, maybe?.. ie a “mother’s love” of “her” creation?

Are calling the women the “creators”?.. or the (mostly) guys who came up with quantum theory & nuclear science? That’s a little vague, there… and I don’t think anyone has forgotten that women & men are “co-creators” of fellow humans… and that men Do have the chromosomes to provide for either maleness or femaleness. So, you think women are selecting which men to allow to generate their maleness?.. and the women are just the vessels, or egg-bearers with an (inner) eye towards picking & choosing among the sperm population? (Well, OK… I think women have psychic powers, too… as a result of having to communicate with one another while maintaining an outer air of subservient ingratiation towards their mighty hunters.)

I’m not sure where the “cream of the cream” of testosterone-endowed humanity might be found, these days, Ed. Should I look around on Wall Street, or Lawrence Livermore, or Burning Man? I want some documentation here, Ed! ^..^

@HerbertAnd there was an equal amount of male ‘dominance’ holding humanity backwards at the other end of the curve… no? Or the Teamwork quotient? Was THAT in there, too?

Yes, very interesting how complex things are, isn’t it? yet somehow we now all the measures, including “male dominance,” a quality of the mind. No doubt we understand all the various qualities of people in order to determine there “are no differences.” Which is my basic point. Can’t tell, but I’ll bet there ARE differences, like complex things such as “male dominance.”

Regarding teamwork, as an Individualist, which I attribute to environmental considerations, but who knows, I think teams are great for executing simple tasks. I do not think teams are great at making fundamental leaps forward in understanding.

I realize that flies in the face of a lot of liberal thinking, but it seems to me there is a concept of “depth.” Surely, it is possible to iterate over many possibilities to arrive at a proper conclusion, but I suspect major changes in perspective require a single individual able to get deep enough to break through the common thought to a new way of thinking.

Modern day thinking in my view is almost completely bogus. Sure, we are making technological improvements, but what is the great new advance in Physics, for example? String theory? That completely unprovable morass of nonsense? Or AGW? Another example of religious claptrap that devolves into a belief system if you follow it closely enough? Yes, there are strides forward in information theory, but where are the thousand great strides forward with such an advanced civilization as ours? We should be inventing a new fundamental world view changing idea every year!

I think we are stuck as in the late 1800s, waiting for that man (or hopefully woman, so we can put all this silliness to bed), that drives that quantum leap forward in understanding.

Maybe we’ve reached the edge of our abilities as a species. My dark fears whisper the new thinking is inhibiting forward progress, and we are headed for a 1000 year dark age.

@CaliFury
It’s not about generalized ideas you find repugnant. It’s about reality. So long as you hold on to your ideas “X is bad because it is paternalistic,” or whatever you provide as the latest mean and bad word, you impede truth.

I do still very much believe that “racism” is a part of human nature, and it is beyond anyone’s capability to completely +dispense of it.

Note this clear expression of a modern belief: nature is all powerful, we are just helpless pawns unable to change our natural destinies

150 years ago somone would have pointed out that the whole thing about civilization is that it does limit one’s natural impolses. Someone would probably say something about life in a state of nature being nasty, brutish, poor, solitary and short. 100 years ago someone else would probably chime in with the whole thing about the Id being controlled by that creation of civilized society, the Superego.

But now all those cruchy granola and tofu eaters such as Ed just go with the belief that accepting what’s “natural” is good (nb: sarcasm alert). Men, you know – unable to act rationally under the influence of those raging hormones.

Absolutely. They chose, they select us, they are the ones in control of our childhood. Except for folks like Genghis Khan (who was quite successful biologically, incidentally).

Not some fish someone mentioned, but primates.

Anyway, I’m sorry if I’m offensive, it’s my nature as I have been in the minority for as long as I can remember, and I do think for myself (though I’m sure a lot of people on this blog would take exception to “think”).

Meanwhile, I have to get back to the job of creating products that are exportable to the countries that are sucking the US dry.

Regards!

(Enjoy the thinking of many of the people posting on this forum, incidentally).

don’t know the IQ of all the men who discovered the theories of quantum mechanics used in our high tech industry today, nor the IQ of the men that theorized and controlled atom splitting, yielding great non C02 producing energy from nuclear reactors, but I would guess it was rather high. If you don’t think those discoveries changed humanity, well, what can I say. I think the French are rather happy with their breeder reactors, for instance. But they didn’t have Jane Fonda and Hollywood

Oh, wait… the French DID have Jane Fonda, too… for long enough to squeeze some Art out of her (remember Barbarella?)…

So, how are the French doing in the “old growth forest” & “biodiversity” departments? They got salmon returning to their rivers? (I guess rivers of tourists can make up for that, economically… if you’re not concerned with the macro-bioeconomics…)

I agree with you, Ed, that “whatever is is Right”- because I honor the opinions of thinkers as diverse as Alexander Pope & Ram Dass (who also thought as much). And, since the men not only Made history but also Wrote It Down, then men like us are the Flower of Creation… and worthy of the worship of superior womankind.

Hey, Ed, I really really DO want to hear that bird of paradise story, though… and hope it’ll be forthcoming, around the old atomic campfire, soon. ^..^

Anyway, I’m sorry if I’m offensive, it’s my nature as I have been in the minority for as long as I can remember, and I do think for myself (though I’m sure a lot of people on this blog would take exception to “think”).

Don’t be sorry for YOUR nature, Ed. (We are all a minority of one, ya know?) And no point being sorry for Nature, writ large… as She can take care of herself.

And, consider making a product that’s fit for domestic consumption, to replace some of our imports… and lower the overall carbon footprint of world trade! You go, Ed! chow ^..^

It’s only a video clip from BBC’s planet earth series. To me, it encapsulates an ongoing (unresolved) issue with evolution as discussed in the “Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins, trying to explain how male traits which are disadvantageous from a survival perspective enter the genome of the species. There are only theories.

Here is the video. I really love the way the male tries so hard to get the chick =)

Uh—-no. This is circular. (We are human so we are human and our nature is human, proving we’re human therefore we have human nature which is our nature as humans…)

This is the same as saying, “Everything we are is because of what we are.”

We aren’t programmed robots of Nature, nor, despite our selfish-old-genes, simple propagation machines chosen by superior females as useful sperm packages. In terms of evolutionary theory, we aren’t anything at all, because we’re not planned. We’re about as random as we can be and still not die out. So far we’re apparently successful carriers of expressed and unexpressed adaptations to environmental stress–but each person has a different potential for adaptive response so even as a group (species, whatever that is) we don’t possess a single “nature.” The nature of a man is complicated and not amenable to understanding under a general label “human nature.” Which is, potentially, an intellectual reason why racism (generalization about peoples) is an evil, since it inhibits actual understanding.

I noted it. I thought “why is that word in there?” Then, later, I saw this:

Everything we are is because of our human nature. Accept it.

If ‘everything’ is because of nature, then how can we do anything contrary to nature, even incompletely? If it’s possible to act against nature partly, but not completely, what’s the point of attributing some fault or evil to nature?

That I realized: It’s you all purpose excuse for bad behavior. It’s only natural to attribute the terrorist acts of certain Muslims to all Muslims, that’s what we are allowed to discriminate against Muslims.

Similarly, if it’s possible that women are ‘naturally’ different than men in some respect, then of course it’s only natural to discriminate against individual women for miniscule difference between the groups.

You seem to have missed the point about attributing group characteristics to indivudals. You also seem to have missed the point that as thinking, moral agents, we can decide wwhether to attribute social signigicance to biological ‘facts’.

In particular, you seem to have missed all the very good moral arguments for why we should not attribute social significance to differences of religion, sex, or race. It’s certainly true that women are different than men – but the social, cultural, and legal implications of that difference are not determined by nature, but by our choices as moral agents.

Prove it. Evidence suggests you are because you are an endless, improbable line of useful sperm producers doing the nasty with (hopefully) receptive females, at least for the last many millions of years.

@michaelIf ‘everything’ is because of nature, then how can we do anything contrary to nature, even incompletely? If it’s possible to act against nature partly, but not completely, what’s the point of attributing some fault or evil to nature?

Being an atheist, it is hard to see how we can act against our human nature. But, there is this consciousness stuff, perhaps also a part of nature, that isn’t understood very well. Many neurologists assume when it is analyzed, it will end up being an empty vessel. Sure doesn’t feel that way. It feels as if we make choices, though there is evidence we make choices before we are aware of them.

What that has to say about free will, who is to say? Maybe we aren’t in control of our destiny, but you can’t tell what it will be until you get there.

That’s silly. As the bell curve moves to the right (or the left), the divergence grows. That’s evidence, not unicorns. The sample size is too small to know, naturally, but for someone who is so willing to accept a theory that aligns with what you would like it to be and reject the evidence to the contrary, I would say you need to stop counting your unicorns.

My unicorns comment was to in response to the fantasized impact on history of an imagined gender proportion of an unsupported extrapolation of the data that you posited. I’m not actually rejecting evidence at all, and I have no particular world-view on this – I’m merely trying to point out that you have essentially no reason to reject the arguments of the scientists in the article: you don’t know what their proof is, so none of the evidence you supply, nor the rickety ladders of supposition you construct upon it, do anything to lift your position above personal prejudice. If you were consistent in your assertions of “no one really knows anything” you would be willing to give at least equal time to the idea that socialization trumps neurology in explaining intellectual attributes as you are to the work of Rushton and the accomplishments of a bunch of scientists who worked in an era when women were more-or-less shut out of the field.

I only read through the abstract on CAH because I don’t have access to the complete paper (at least not easily: I’m a lowly engineer).

I don’t understand how you can consider that girls with CAH acting more like boys to be an indication there are no differences in brain function as controlled by our genetics.

It seems to me support the idea there are evolutionary differences. These compounds control our desires, urge us to engage in activities that may help us (I say are very likely to help us) to develop our brains for gender specific tasks.

@mark
A few points. There are plenty of intelligent people who would like nothing more than to prove observed differences in the sexes are on account of environment. I don’t think they make a good case, and I provide a number of theories that seem like good fits for why there would be genetic differences.

Even dsci offers up a report that shows hormones make a difference in female behavior. It is astounding that with evidence like that one wouldn’t consider the differences to be genetic!

I have no interest in promoting an idea that seems silly to me (it’s the environment). Meanwhile, I’m more than willing to try to make the case there are theories that suggest there ARE genetic differences.

Bottom line, though, no one knows because the basic mechanisms aren’t understood. I didn’t get to read the CAH study, only the abstract, but how simple (adverse) mutations in the adrenal gland cause such complex behavioral changes in girls (they behave more like boys) tells me it is about genetic differences.

@dsci: not quite the same experiment I had in mind, because it doesn’t take a fully developed female brain and then zap it with hormones to see if the part of the brain developed to cause male behavior in the absence of female hormones. Meanwhile, with the CAH study, maybe we don’t have a good understanding of all the hormones (and hence, all the triggers?)

the CAH study, only the abstract, but how simple (adverse) mutations in the adrenal gland cause such complex behavioral changes in girls (they behave more like boys) tells me it is about genetic differences.

It would seem to tell us some things are about biology yes, which I don’t think anyone here or in the article is disputing. Those things identified in the CAH study are not the ones under discussion. It does not say that women are going to be innately better or worse in any particular field of mental endeavor (math, spatial reasoning) or that those innate differences are so major that they cannot be overcome, thanks to neural plasticity. You are again drawing a conclusion unsupported by the data you have and – for all you know – addressed by the authors in question. You are also rejecting as “silly” an argument you literally have not heard. And you keep falling back on the same “no one knows because the basic mechanisms aren’t understood” argument that has been addressed repeatedly in these comments. As far as I am concerned, in the absence of any refutation of the work under discussion, “no one knows” only means that you’ve failed to make your case, not that the authors have not made theirs.

1. There are differences in the accomplishments of men and women in various fields. (He doesn’t spell out which ones, but it doesn’t really matter for present purposes because nobody argues with this point anyway.)

2. Nobody knows whether these differences are genetic.

3. These differences are genetic.

It’s the disconnect between 2 and 3 that has me off-balance, I think. Logically, any argument *for or against* 3, if it succeeds, would ipso facto falsify 2, but that somehow doesn’t stop Ed from arguing both at once and sliding back and forth between them as circumstances demand.

2, of course, is readily defended by “That evidence isn’t convincing enough to me, so you still don’t REALLY know FOR SURE”, which can be kept up until the heat death of the universe if the disputant so desires. As soon as someone gives up and goes away, the fact that 2 hasn’t been REALLY disproved means, by definition, that 3 is still open for argument.

My position, for the record, is that (A) the observed group-average differences are overdetermined by so many non-genetic factors that it’s impossible to tell in the real world whether there is any genetic component at all and, if so, how important it is, and (B) within-group variation is so large relative to between-group variation that it makes group membership as a proxy for the actual traits so crude as to be useless, and therefore it ought not be used as such.

@Ed
It’s been fun, but I’m getting close to finished arguing with a troll, but I don’t want you to keep citing me and CAH as evidence of major differences.

There ARE differences and not a single person here says there aren’t. We are saying the differences are small. I actually don’t have access to the full CAH article I linked to, but it was just to show a line of research. Still even in these cases, the effects are significant, but small. Here’s another paper I could access:
Meyer-Bahlburg et al “Archives of Sexual Behavior” 2007http://www.springerlink.com/content/n518663m16636v1k/fulltext.html

They compared several types of CAH with controls for interest and action towards homosexual behavior. While there were some significant differences (most with p values in the p<0.04 range) there was still huge overlap and a huge difference from another control population of men. Even a huge hormone change made only small differences in sexual orientation.

The other behavioral differences with CAH are statistically significant, but also small.

I'm also curious where this huge population of "intelligent people who would like nothing more than to prove observed differences in the sexes are on account of environment" is working. There are dozens of books and hundreds of lay article talking about the biological basis of sex differences. Why do two books that acknowledge some differences, but point to strong environmental factors somehow require so much pushback?

@bsciIt’s been fun, but I’m getting close to finished arguing with a troll,

Sorry you feel that way. I’m merely arguing the evidence isn’t in, but the theories I’ve read and my own thought process indicates there are genetic differences.

I do enjoy all the dialogues here, in particular those that have expanded my personal thinking of things. It’s interesting that we do not have “opposite” opinions. My thinking is the evidence isn’t in yet, and so it’s hard to tell.

If there are genetic differences, then the current ideas are providing a huge disservice to people. I think there are things women have much more aptitude than men have, but somehow the modern day society of measuring stick of “worth” doesn’t include those.

Since this is a statistical model, it says nothing about whether there aren’t incredibly brilliant women. I know one, and she seems to think very different than “plodding” men. She is able to go over the same ground, see things men are blind to and make amazing simplifications. My theory is that she thinks differently than men. Unfortunately, she is pretty well despised. I think that’s the male ego (learned?)

Thanks for your comments. I will look up your 40 minute video when I have a chance, and very much the best in your neuroscience pursuits.

(from Ed, CA) My thinking is the evidence isn’t in yet, and so it’s hard to tell.

If there are genetic differences, then the current ideas are providing a huge disservice to people.

OK, Ed… the “evidence isn’t in yet”… so “science” would dictate that hypotheses (let’s call them “current ideas”) be developed and tested, as best one can.
If there “are genetic differences” (which everyone seems to allow is PARTIALLY the case, most likely) does that mean we all stop considering the question? In other words, is it a “huge disservice” to pursue “science”?

My thanks to Mark & bsci for their displays of patience and logical deconstruction. I find that intrinsically valuable, as examples of analytic thinking. They are food for what intellect I may possess.

Maybe I should thank you, too, Ed, CA for presenting the persona of a cheery, breezy misogynistic bigot, without forcing me to go out and locate one in the flesh. And, thanks again for giving us “the bird (of paradise)”. ^..^

@bsci: I listened to the whole 40 minutes of pink brain blue brain. It was somewhat balanced.

There are a few points I would comment on the video. First, she brushes off CAH later in the video by saying “girls with CAH have normal spatial relations.” What she neglects to mention is in what framework: normal for girls or normal for boys. As these girls are performing the boy like tasks she attributes to improved spatial relations, the answer SHOULD be normal within the framework of boys. As behavior is the lynchpin to her entire discussion, I can’t tell from her 40 minute monologue whether her talk is worth disk space on which it is stored.

Second, her assumption is that “equal is good.” She seems to admit there are differences in interests, and the CAH study strongly indicates these are on account of sex based interests. Why it is “good” to try to change our human nature to equalize these differences (if it can be done, which was NOT in evidence), is an opinion, and to me is in the realm of social engineering, not in the realm of science. Yet, she seems to have a quite strong idea that differences are not desirable. Why is what is natural not desirable? Who knows what follow on affects could happen to female behavior, if we accept the idea we should try to have women follow male development behavior (or vice versa)?

It sounds to me like Lise Eliot has her own measuring stick that differs from the naturally evolved one. Given that fewer and fewer women in blue states are reproducing, and while I don’t have the evidence I would suspect that highly educated women reproduce even less, I’m not convinced even if Lise was correct that this is in the best interest of Western Civilization.

Now I realize that’s a mouthful, but I will use Lise’s own arguments that environment can cause future major behavior changes.

I do not like the cause and effect fuzziness around her comments on fashion designers. They are fashion designers because they have good spatial relations, or they have good spatial relations because they are fashion designers?

I did not find her talk compelling. It seemed more of a talk on opinion (X is good, maybe we can achieve X), and debunking of recent scientific work. That later goes to my point, there isn’t enough information yet to know.

After ranting for so long, I’m glad you think that she’s “somewhat balanced.”

I’m not sure what your issues are? She points out what’s the same and what the small differences are. You then seem to go on to make the argument that the world might be better of if women got less education so they would spend more time producing babies? Really?!?

As you note, she gives dozens of examples where environment trumps biology. That’s not saying we don’t have enough information to know. It’s saying assigning the majority of sex differences to biology ignores what we do know about environmental factors.

I haven’t watched the video, but in the book she spends quite a bit of time listing the mechanisms through which positive traits get gender segregated and ways to be conscious of these mechanisms and decrease their effects. She very strongly believes that it good to have men who are more aware of emotions and women who have more competitiveness and initiative. It isn’t an either or where a competitive person can be attuned to emotions. You seriously disagree with this?

@bsci
I said it would be better if they were less educated? Please show me where I said that. Unlike you, I do not tie worth to having great spatial relations. Nor do I see anything wrong with different people adapting to different roles. It’s been going on since the Modern Era, you know.

Another major failing in Lise’s monologue (in my view) is that she does not address that the natural proclivities observed as genetic sexual proclivities as proved by the CAH study. (CAH isn’t even altering sex hormones!)

If childhood proclivities are driven by genetics, which it seems quite likely to me given the CAH study, one must then ask the question “Why?” The obvious answer is that it helps women and men to suit their biological roles better. You may call that environmental, I call that “genetics.”

Unlike Lise, and apparently you, I’m not willing to cast off millions of years of evolution for this new in vogue concept “equality of outcomes” until I have a very good understanding of why those differences exist, and further, the consequences of changing the natural in the pursuit of social experimentation.

In fact, I’ll go further. In all Western countries, the only one that has a self replicating fertility rate of 2.1 among Caucasians is the US. And that is because of the high fertility rate in the red states making up for the low fertility rates of the blue ones.

What would happen if all this “equality” creates a culture that dies out? Is “equality” worth it then?

And another thing that bothers me is this idea that empathy is such a great thing. There is this guy I know who built a successful startup company. He told me he fired a person at least once every other week because they couldn’t cut it. The startup survived under this method. So maybe empathy is good for some things, but not so good for others. An empathic person may well have destroyed the company.

It truly amazes me how people are so willing to accept abstract ideals. The truth is the world is a muddy, dirty place, and we humans have adapted to deal with it. In my view, we should seek to understand what and why we are, rather than blindly push social engineering when we haven’t a damn clue.

Unlike Lise, and apparently you, I’m not willing to cast off millions of years of evolution for this new in vogue concept “equality of outcomes” until I have a very good understanding of why those differences exist, and further, the consequences of changing the natural in the pursuit of social experimentation.

I assume, then, that you’ve given up all of those “new in vogue” ideas that upset the millions of years of evolution, like cars, houses, computers, the Internet, etc.

You can signal this best by not posting again.

The truth is the world is a muddy, dirty place, and we humans have adapted to deal with it.

You read Heinlein as a youngster, didn’t you? In any case, I’d like to chat with the adaptions that created my knees (terrible for moving in any direction but forward), my eyes (inconveniently located in the front, with no warning of predators coming from the rear), and my skin (horribly prone to sun damage). The “we’re highly evolved animals and we should stop acting like anything else” mindset is sort of a weird leftover of Social Darwinism. You’ve implicitly invoked Lamarckism already in the thread; next up, Herbert Spencer.

I said it would be better if they were less educated? Please show me where I said that.

I’ll step in here:

I would suspect that highly educated women reproduce even less, I’m not convinced even if Lise was correct that this is in the best interest of Western Civilization.

You linked a cause (educated women) to an effect (lowered reproduction) that you described as a negative outcome (bad for Western Civilization). Assuming a fondness for Western Civilization (unimpeachably decent Americans being a part of it and all), then it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that you believe that education for women is a bad thing.

Mind you, you did specify that Blue State women were reproducing less, while patriotically fecund Red State women were doing their part to hold the line for American (and caucasian – naturally!) culture, so perhaps given your views on politics and (being polite) the qualities of those in different “groups” than yourself, perhaps you don’t see a Blue State decline as a bad thing at all.

Whatever the case, your linking of the survival of Western Civilization (or America, or whatever you meant by the strategically vague use of “culture that dies out”) explicitly to white birth rates has made you, despite your cheery persona, too repugnant to converse with any more. I’d thought you’d posted Rushton in benign ignorance of his agenda. I don’t think that now. I leave you and your Galtonian worldview to bsci, assuming he can suppress his gag reflex long enough to compose a reply.

Naw, this highly oiginal thinker is about to invent the doctrine of the divine right of kings.

It’s obvious that we evolved to be perfect, so the way we are is perfect, so that nature must intend us to be the way that I think we are. In other words, ‘nature’ has taken the place of ‘god’ and we’ve got something like natural calvinism (is that what I mean? Not Susan Calvin, the other one) where nature rewards those who follow natural laws.

The obvious answer is that it helps women and men to suit their biological roles better.

Not so much predatory as superior to such an extent that ordinary human considerations are irrelevant. When I (immortal superman that I am) want something it is, of course, just fine. That is the way it is for us products of careful eugenic breeding. Our superior genotypes justify our decisions. The health and welfare of regular mayfly humans are of no significance. Except my mommy, whom I really like a lot. Kind of like Oedipus, but without the baggage.

I think I’ll fly away now in my superintelligent supership. Just remember, “Per ardua ad astra” and if you just choose your behavior to match your basic human Nature someday your descendants will be as evolved as me.

@mark
I think you draw conclusions that are contrary to my intent. Who knows, maybe that is the dark, evil side in me.

I don’t “know” the truth about any of this, and further I don’t think anyone else does either. Humans, society, brains, etc., are simply way too complex.

I also suggest you are confusing moral ideology with science. Science doesn’t have morality, nor does it indicate one unless one attaches value to existence.

I simply suggest the latest in vogue Western ideas MAY be causing the culture from which it arose to die out. I gave you evidence for this. I have to say it makes me feel terrible when I think of this.

From my own perspective, and because I do have patriotic ideas of Western Civilization as being the best thing going right now, I will go out on a limb and say I would like high IQ women to reproduce, a lot. As I rate “existence” and propagation of the great qualities of high IQ women more than the abstract ideal of “equality of outcomes,” I have to admit my bias here. Lately, even, there is are “egg banks” in which eggs are sold based on the achievement of the women: the higher the SATs/GREs, the more expensive the egg. So who knows what the future holds?

It’s moving fast, it’s crazy, but sometimes I think we are too willing to hold on to moral “ideals,” which to me are a form of religion (a belief system).

Regarding Rushton, I spent 10 minutes googling for a study to support a contention I made that I had read about or heard about. I have no idea whether the guy is a crackpot or not, though the outer edges of the bell curve I think is pretty well accepted at this point, though the sample size was only 1267 people.

@silbey, the ditzI assume, then, that you’ve given up all of those “new in vogue” ideas that upset the millions of years of evolution, like cars, houses, computers, the Internet, etc.

Yes, people had no dwellings, people had no form of communications. These are merely evolutionary modifications, and thankfully businesses are the ones running them so that they fit with what people actually want and desire, not some “edict” from a bunch of arrogant eggheads.

@herbert, the ditzIt’s obvious that we evolved to be perfect, so the way we are is perfect, so that nature must intend us to be the way that I think we are

I get it. Evolution isn’t perfect, and didn’t make perfect outcomes, except the eggheads on this blog who are so certain that evolution gave THEM the perfect insight.

Compare that to the (more humble) notion that we don’t understand it anywhere near enough to make big experiments. In fact, judging from some of the experiments, like Affirmative Action, I would say the eggheads have done rather poorly.

From my own perspective, and because I do have patriotic ideas of Western Civilization as being the best thing going right now, I will go out on a limb and say I would like high IQ women to reproduce, a lot. As I rate “existence” and propagation of the great qualities of high IQ women more than the abstract ideal of “equality of outcomes,” I have to admit my bias here. Lately, even, there is are “egg banks” in which eggs are sold based on the achievement of the women: the higher the SATs/GREs, the more expensive the egg. So who knows what the future holds?

The thing that makes your statement not only banal but racist is that you think that “western civilization” and “caucasian” are synonyms.

Oh, and not giving up on computers despite the fact that you’re [edited for typos] slipping away from your dearly-held idea about millions of years of evolution?

@eric
As if I haven’t been called much worse on this blog, like “misogynist.” Oh? And the sarcasm is so thick there must be a bull around here. It’s not the politeness? It’s OK if you use it to support the right POV?

Well, it looks as if I’ve outworn my welcome here. I’m a racist, misogynist, and many other things. That’s fine, as I said before, you are all welcome to find the shape of your own hand.

I do have to say there are two standards here. I suppose I’m banned for calling people who make logical leaps out of context and fire them back as evidence of “racism,” or “misogyny” to be much worse than pointing out the logical inference isn’t there. I was told this blog had some REAL introspective dialogue, but it seems to me it falls short, far short.

How sad. The troll feels hurt by all these close-minded and unscientific folk.

Perhaps he’s right and we’re just trying to fight the basic facts of evolution and violate natural selection. The world would be such a better place if we stopped taking medicine and let everyone gather their own food. How else can we make sure the only the best specimens of humanity further our evolution?

Funny, you claim I’m a troll, but can’t argue the points, and now “I’m hurt.” Not at all. You people are merely another example of an intolerant religion. Can’t reason? Use argument by authority, use the latest keyword: today it is “misogynist” and “racist” instead of nigger. Oops! those who can’t string logic together and are appropriately called ditzes or eggheads are banned. Boo Hoo.

Keep on having fun with the circle jerk. Sure that hand is well explored.

Yes, people had no dwellings, people had no form of communications. These are merely evolutionary modifications, and thankfully businesses are the ones running them so that they fit with what people actually want and desire, not some “edict” from a bunch of arrogant eggheads.

We had crossed responses earlier, so I missed this one the first time. I love that equality is some horrendous betrayal of our evolutionary heritage, but the Interstate system is just a “modification.” We could apply this to more things. Democracy? Betrayal of millions of years of our foundational evolutionary heritage. Internet porn? Minor shift.

And if you think businesses created or run a lot of the things I mentioned, then you’re about as ignorant as I thought. Try “interstate” and Eisenhower to start, and then we’ll work down a list.

Funny, you claim I’m a troll, but can’t argue the points

I now count it twice that Ed has flounced out of here, only to return. Anybody bet on three?

I suppose I’m banned for calling people who make logical leaps out of context and fire them back as evidence of “racism,” or “misogyny” to be much worse than pointing out the logical inference isn’t there.

You’ve defended a country that has engaged in apartheid, slavery and genocide as being above criticism because of its exemplary record. You’ve suggested that men have dominated history because of their superior IQs at the tippy-top margin, despite the fact that the entire history of IQ testing rebuts this (and leaving aside the inadequacies of IQ tests). This is misogyny.

One of the signal accomplishments of the troglodytes in modern America is that they’ve managed to stigmatize anti-racism, so that you can’t call a racist a racist any more in polite society.

Well, fine, you guys get the rest of society, we get little outposts like EOTAW where we can talk among ourselves undisturbed. It’s a good deal for you, and you ought to be a gracious winner and just go away.

It’s not “therefore whatever conclusion I want to believe is completely justified.”
It’s, “We don’t know anything therefore I am right and anyone who denies the truthiness of my statements is an ditzy, intolerant masturbating eggheaded fanatic who doesn’t understand my own greatness.”

There’s something I don’t understand here. Well, okay, there’s lots of things I don’t understand, but one that I’ve been puzzling about for a while, and maybe someone can explain it to me.

I start from the inference that Ed really and truly doesn’t know the distinction between calling someone a ditz and calling someone a misogynist.

To me the distinction seems clear. ‘Misogynist’ describes a certain set of actions; that is, one has acted in ways that show belief in certain ideas. One can look at evidence of actions, and talk about the import of those actions.

‘Ditz’ describes a general character attribute, a state of being. It’s vague, and says little more than that the speaker has a low opinion of the person described.

In other words, one is about doing, and one is about being, about character.

I see this same focus on character rather than actions in public discussions of politics over the last decade or so. GWB was a regular guy. McCaine is a maverick. Kerry and Carter, wimps. I’ve seen it in Ed’s writing (Americans are good and decent).

It seems like the ad hominem is the only form of argument that carries any weight, that is familiar.

I don’t have a good handle on whether this is really happening (whether I’m observing something real) and if so, why.

In all Western countries, the only one that has a self replicating fertility rate of 2.1 among Caucasians is the US.

This is the proof of racism: in order for this statement to be relevant, it must first be assumed that reproduction among Caucasians (a vague term even before considering interracial couples and their children, but that’s the least of the problems here) is different from reproduction among humans in general.

There’s also the assumption that Western civilization needs higher birthrates or larger populations (it doesn’t, and in fact the large population we have is endangering the planet and ipso facto the civilization that lives here), but that’s merely wrong; assuming that Caucasian babies are so fundamentally different from non-Caucasian babies that one can’t be substituted for the other and maintain “American culture” or “Western civilization” is clear and outright racism.